Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Breach (Bolton v Stone: likelihood of harm, severity of harm, precautions,…
Breach
Bolton v Stone: likelihood of harm, severity of harm, precautions, social utility
Wagon Mound No2: oil in Sydney harbour, high likelihood of harm, easy precautions
Pearson v Lightning: golf balls, high likelihood of harm, easy precautions
Hayley v London Electricity Board: blind person, hole, likelihood of harm, must adapt to individuals' characteristics
Paris v Stepney BC: one eye, no goggles, blind, high level of harm
-
Latimer v AEC: sawdust, had taken all reasonable precautions
Bottomley v Torpenden Cricket Club: did not check for insurance, fell below
-
-
-
-
Standard of care
-
-
Wells v Cooper: doorknob, reasonably competent DIY enthusiast
Greaves v Baynam: if you hold yourself out as having a higher skill than you have, you will be held to that level
Professionals
Bolam v Freirn Hospital: professionals will be held to professional standard (limb one) and judged according to body of peers (limb two)
-
-
Re Herald of Free Enterprise: ferry doors, illogical
Sports
Wooldridge v Summer: likely to take risks in sport, must be high level of recklessness
Condon v Bassi: breaks opponent's leg, reasonably competent footballer, obiter = higher standard for professional
Vowles v Evans: rugby referee. Reasonably competent referee - higher standard as outside heat of game.
-
Disabilities
Roberts v Ramsbottom: driving, stroke. Held to reasonably competent driver, who would have pulled over
Mansfield v Weetabix: lorry driver, glycaemic attack. Held to standard of reasonably competent driver who was unaware of illness.
Children
Mullins v Richards: schoolgirls, ruler. Reasonably competent ---- year old. Objective.
Orchard v Lee: 13 yr old boys roughhousing, high level of recklessness to be in breach